Cavegirl Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Because everybody is / needs to be different. I think you're getting waylaid by an irrelevent matter. Of course any future society will reinvent itself in various ways, that's just a fact of projecting the historical process into the future. Societies always change eventually whether we put any real effort into thinking about that change or not. This discourse isn't about the discontents of future societies, it's about facing up to our own discontents and considering what might be done about them, how we might find a better way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ... how we might find a better way. So the debate is about how and what it would be like without a monetary system, as said earlier, it can't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Thanks, i'll watch n read when I get home. I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts. Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted. Too much innocence or anything is not good for you. You need all types of people to make a well balanced society. Many years ago I remember reading an Archigram book and Ron Arad was discussing the necessity (inevitability) of a red light district in every city. Take any city in history from any culture or place and it is made up of the same odds and sods of people, all ancient and religious text describe it as the same. Technology changes, the way (not how) we interact doesn't. Ramble over! I'll title that, "we need competitive spirit"... Erm...isn't it the competetive spirit that encourages these 'outsiders' to treat said fantasy country as a 'sitting duck'. A bit of cooperative spirit and they might have benefitted from the advanced technologies and arts instead of taking the short term loot and pillage approach... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So the debate is about how and what it would be like without a monetary system, as said earlier, it can't work. Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you What by ignoring them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you Too many people and the myriad of tings dey do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I will list these problems below: First of all the monetary system survives on the basis of cyclical consumption. The cycle consists of the employer, the employee and the consumer. The employee exchanges his labour for a wage with the employer, while the employer sells the good or service produced by that labour to the consumer for a profit. Both the employer and employee also operate as consumers, using the profit or wages they respectively acquired to purchase their every day necessities. This relates to the following issues.Why is this listed as a problem? Planned obsolescence in design is the practise of, deliberately or not designing and manufacturing a product with out-dated methods and materials for the purpose of maximising profit.I don't think the description is very good. The design and manufacturing could be state of the art without conflicting with planned obsolescence. Nothing physically produced can ever maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain the need for cyclical consumption. In other words, a product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time to force the consumer to buy a new one, supporting the circulation of purchasing power and sustaining the economy, in spite of the excess waste created as a result. Therefore, Cost efficiency = Technological inefficiency. There's nothing to say that when the item is upgraded it can't be sold onto to a market with lower expectations or purchasing power. Planned failure is more pernicious, but competition between companies should help to reduce that (you buy a car with a reputation for reliability, not for high maintenance costs). Technological unemployment is a term used to describe the replacement of human workers by machines or artificial intelligence. One of the major objectives of companies, and often a target for high ranking employees, is to minimise input costs, such as the cost of human labour. The inclination to replace human labour with mechanised labour is an innate attribute of industry. Human labour is expensive, inconvenient (for the organisation) and less productive than automation. A machine does not sign a labour contract, is not paid a wage or pension, does not require health insurance or claim benefits, does not take breaks or vacations and is not a member of a trade union, making certain that it will not be making any demands in the future. Who can blame a business for aspiring towards maximising profit whilst perceivably advancing technological progress? The majority of the workforce in developed countries exists in the service sector. It is only a matter of time before the service sector becomes automated. Currently, no other sector exists that is capable of absorbing such a massive workforce. Automation is a good thing, it might cause short term disruption as jobs are replaced, but in the long term everyone benefits, it's not a problem of a monetary economy. Artificial scarcity is the result of a practice of intentionally maintaining or increasing the scarcity of a product or service. in simpler terms, it is when the technological capability and productive capacity exist, but are deliberately limited in order for it’s value to remain profitable, either by keeping the value stable or bloating it. The opposition to the concept of artificial scarcity as an inevitability in industry claims that social and ethical responsibilities will restrain business from pursuing such practices. Far more important than any ethical restraint to this is the competitive restraint. If company A is artificially limiting the production of widgets, then company B can get in there and grab some market share. The patent system and/or monopolies limit the competitive angle sometimes, but generally not for very long, look at the iPad or the iPhone for example. However, as history has shown, businesses are never willing to sacrifice themselves or put their survival at risk in favour of preserving their integrity. Layoffs and redundancies are some of the ultimate forms of social and ethical irresponsibility, yet they are rampant today in an economic recession that threatens bankruptcy for those willing to maintain a clean conscience. These are but some of the identifiable problems that exist today. I could add more, but this post is long enough. I look forward to your feedback. Designed failure is the only real problem I think you've identified there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Too many people and the myriad of tings dey do! There were many people about, all doing different things when capitalism replaced feudalism as the main economic basis of society.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 There were many people about, all doing different things when capitalism replaced feudalism as the main economic basis of society.... There was still value based trade even though there wasn't money, but there was... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism Manorialism was characterized by the vesting of legal and economic power in a Lord of the Manor, supported economically from his own direct landholding in a manor (sometimes called a fief), and from the obligatory contributions of a legally subject part of the peasant population under the jurisdiction of himself and his manorial court. These obligations could be payable in several ways, in labor (the French term corvée is conventionally applied), in kind, or, on rare occasions, in coin. My bold and underline... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.